Parallel Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities : in the context of the Initial Report of Germany under Article 35 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

摘要

"Germany has made steady efforts to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) since it came into force in 2009. The Federal Government, the Länder, and the municipalities are studying the aims of the CRPD and striving (to varying degrees) to promote equal rights and participation for persons with disabilities within their jurisdictions. Numerous steps have been taken in the name of the Convention to promote the rights of persons with disabilities.It is particularly encouraging that many non-governmental actors, including persons with disabilities, now feel closely involved with the Convention’s mandate and are working actively to implement its stipulations. One point of criticism, however, is that these positive developments in many cases have failed to go hand in hand with a paradigm shift in public policy towards more self-determination and equal participation for persons with disabilities. The real structural changes that would lead to this shift have yet to be made.In the view of the National Monitoring Body (NMB), the State Party (SP) is far from having taken all the possible and necessary steps for the implementation of the Convention in the period from 2009 to 2015. In many cases, the significance and scope of the Convention have failed to have any legal or practical impact. For example, no human rights perspective is discernible in the development of government programmes (see Article 6: Protection against Violence for Women and Girls, and Article 14: Rights of People in Psychiatric Care), in legislative measures, or in administrative and court decisions (Article 9: Extending Accessibility). Although participation by persons with disabilities and their representative organisations is frequently possible, it does not always take place in suitable and meaningful formats (Article 4: Participation).Finally, some of the Convention’s specifications, such as the principle of inclusion, have a socio-political dimension. A controversial public debate about inclusion is underway in Germany, which is reflected in some parts of this report (Article 24: Requirements of an Inclusive School System; Article 27: Employment in Workshops).Many leading institutions in the State Party (Federal Government and the provinces (Länder)) are in favour of preserving special facilities for persons with disabilities in their existing form. In some sectors – such as education, housing, and the workplace – this entails the preservation of double structures (Article 19: De-institutionalisation) which, however, carry the danger of segregation and discrimination.Overall, it is clear that the specifications of the CRPD have not yet had sufficient impact on the everyday reality of persons with disabilities in Germany. Emphatic recommendations from the CRPD Committee will be necessary to prompt policymakers to address the existing problems, known points of conflict, and unresolved implementation issues with the necessary determination.A further point of criticism concerns the State Party’s approach to its reporting obligations in thisprocedure, which falls well short of its potential. While the Initial Report (2011) mentions a series of initiatives and programmes for promoting the participation of persons with disabilities as well as listing measures to ensuretheir equality, no sufficiently self-critical analysis of existing problems and deficits in the implementation of the Convention has been carried out so far. Many articles of the State Party’s report simply outline the legal situation without addressing its implementation in practice, so that the State Party’s portrayal of the situation is ultimately unsatisfactory.The State Party has not succeeded in responding to the CRPD Committee’s List of Issues with sufficient awareness of the problems and necessary solutions and in adequate detail. Some of its answers fail to address the issues at all. Particularly problematic are the responses concerning the jurisdiction of the Länder, some of which do touch on the various problems, but only in greatly simplified form while others are passed over in their entirety. No proper overview emerges from these descriptions." (author's abstract)